Bush speech flies in the face of reality in Iraq.

I used to watch monkey man, but of late I have grown to the point were I can't stand his voice or looks. So I did not watch him on the boob tube the other night but have read his regurgitated speech. I must say though I had know idea that Iraq was involved in 911

Iraq Combat Veterans describe occupation of Iraq as a “runaway train.”

Snip~~

President Bush mis-led the American public last night,” says Mike Hoffman, Iraq combat veteran and founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War. The President’s speech delivered at Fort Bragg (NC) yesterday attempted to shore up the flagging support of the American public, who are growing doubtful that the U.S. will have success in Iraq. Delivered before a disciplined captive audience of 82nd Airborne troops, serving as hand-picked stage props, the presidential address emphasized the supposed connection between the war in Iraq and the events of September 11, 2001, despite recent revelations brought about by the Downing Street memo, that claims the Bush Adminstration was “fixing” the facts to justify an Iraq invasion. Patrick Resta, a medic who served in Iraq says, “Let’s be clear - the Iraq War has nothing to do with 9-11. The so-called Iraqi insurgents are not the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center.”


Read more at Irag Veterans Against The War

I did sat down with my husband and listened to what mr. Bush had to said, even when I knew that it was nothing new.

I guess he has to beat to dead the Issue of 9/11 and "war on terror" to still get his blind supporters agreeing with him.

They are becoming very scarce and not easily to find anymore.

I'll go y'all one better.. I dint even bother to remember he was speaking.

I can probably recite his speeches word-for-word now in my sleep.

Only the dimmest or most naive among us could believe anything he sez.

[edit on 7/3/05 by EastCoastKid]

You know something funny, I never listened to Mr. Clinton speeches, but I have listen to almost all of Mr. Bush.

I have to look at him in the face and see how he can stand in national TV and lie his hart out.

I couldn't stand listening to Clinton's BS.

Same thing now with Bush.

Unless I'm f-ed up and out to catch his lies of ommission, errors and outright whoppers. There's a new drinking game about that. Whatever you do tho, if you play it, somebody betta hide yo keys!

Actually, Marg, ECK, you've got it backwards. It's your hate and anger that people have grown tired of. Everyone I've known that supported Bush when he won the election still support him now. You talk about us supporters getting scarce, but it's Bush that won this election by a greater majority than last time. It makes you mad that he won the election, is president, and there's really nothing that you can do about it now. I think I'm one of the only few Bush supporters left that will include himself in these kind of repetitive, over-done arguments anymore. And even I've grown so sick of it that my posts are few and far between.

But whatever, it's a politics board, so rant away!

By the way: Shouldn't a post like this belong in the rant section? It was hardly done for the purpose of political discussion.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by Herman]

Originally posted by Herman
Actually, Marg, ECK, you've got it backwards. It's your hate and anger that people have grown tired of.

There's about as much hate and anger in me and Marg than there is in a bunny rabbit.

Everyone I've known that supported Bush when he won the election still support him now.

Broaden your circle of friends.

You talk about us supporters getting scarce, but it's Bush that won this election by a greater majority than last time. It makes you mad that he won the election, is president, and there's really nothing that you can do about it now. I think I'm one of the only few Bush supporters left that will include himself in these kind of repetitive, over-done arguments anymore. And even I've grown so sick of it that my posts are few and far between.

You're the only person here arguing. What does that tell us?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Only the dimmest or most naive among us could believe anything he sez.

Only the dimmest would believe any politician, so why single this cat out, huh?

I notice that only the dimmest on both ends of the spectrum continue to believe their mantras, is it appropriate to point that out? For example, people like to make it sound like Hussein had nothing to do with terror. As a matter of fact, it seems like most of the TuplipWalkers try and paint ol' Uncle Saddam as being a kind old man. They seem to forget he trained terrorists and gave sanctuary to the most notorious of them. As a matter of fact, he killed one of them for refusing to carry out a plot against the U.S. Sorry, Hussein had it coming to him.

No, Iraq may not have had any direct involvement in 9-11, but that doesn't make Hussein an innocent man. Remember, this is supposed to be a War on Terror, not just a war with al Quaeda.

Putting my conspiratorial theories aside as this is politics, I'd say Iraq was targeted next because it was the easiest to explain, legally. As a matter of fact, Hussein should have been stomped by the world a long time ago for not living up to the bargains that stopped the hostilities about 15 years ago. Of course, with the European allies making money under the table with Hussein, I can see why they didn't want to do it. Regardless, Removing Hussein was the legally-right thing to do, and that made him the easiest target after Afghanistan.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Broaden your circle of friends.

I've got more friends that dislike Bush than friends who like Bush.

You're the only person here arguing. What does that tell us?

Two things.

1.) I have a lot of patience.

2.) A topic like this belongs in the Rant forum, along with many of your other posts aimed specifically at bashing president Bush.

It could be argued that Saddam Hussein should never have been supported and promoted by the US government to begin with (back in the late '50's.) Doing so was a dance with the devil on our part. But that's how it works out there in the dirty world. (You know that.)

Saddam certainly does not have clean hands. And yes, he deserves what is coming to him. The same thing applies, though, to those who dealt with him. (Can't get that Rumsfeld/Saddam handshake pic out of my head.)

Is he really any more despicable a leader than most? Probly not. He's just been singled out, for reasons none of us outside the top of the food chain truly ascertain. On that, we can only speculate.

Originally posted by Herman


1.) I have a lot of patience.

2.) A topic like this belongs in the Rant forum, along with many of your other posts aimed specifically at bashing president Bush.

Then consider this.. opinions are like a holes...

You're certainly entitled to yours.

ECK, here is an concise timeline of Saddam's rise to power:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Yes, we supported Hussein in the Cold War. Not as far back as the fifties, more like in the later part of the 70's, but remember, we were opposing the Soviet Union. Sure, the government had no idea how the support of despotic lunatics was going to bite us in the arse at a later date, but first things first. Today, people are quick to point out how those we trained in the Cold War are now our enemies, but nobody mentions the trouble that has been caused by those that the Soviets backed. Why not some equal time by those who like to point out our Cold War monsters, created out of necessity, that are biting us at our ankles today?